Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[Canuck_25]

Im going to post my oppinon, so here it goes.

I would be willing to accept the govornor general becoming head of state as a LAST option. As a young person, raised in a small town atmosphere, I believe, like some of my peers, that the way our goverment runs is a Canadian form. We have a senate, a house of commons, supreme court, and a privy council. Our goverment is based off the two strongest influences in our history, Britain and the U.S. The main question is, why fix something that already works? Who cares if it's a old "antique" way of goverment. The British people still approve of the house of lords, even though it's history is over 500 years old. 

I consider it un Canadian to desire a American form of goverment. If anyone in Canada wants to promote a revolution towards american style of goverment, pack your bags and head south. This country is Canada, we have created our own history, our own goverment, and our own heritage. As Don Cherry once said, "if you dont approve of it, get out!"

 

[Infanteer]

The "love it or leave it" approach is touching, but only really represents a lack of ability to debate the issue.  I've told you before, if you don't have anything constructive to add and feel that any talk about government reform (yes, believe it or not, things change), then stay off this thread.

WRT to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it it" statement, some would argue that there is a problem in that the Prime Minister has too much power concentrated in his office and the "checks and balances" that do exist in the Head of State (the Crown represented by the GG) are rendered irrelevant due to the fact that the GG is largely seen to be a figurehead.  Legitimizing the GG by making it a public office may reverse this and bring an important check to Cabinet.  Nowhere in this argument is there the idea that we should move to an "American system".

The argument for electing a Governor General to represent the Queen in Canada is an easy one to make, but this is a debate that has real political consequences.  The argument to keep the antique, the Monarchy, is completely different and (except for the costs of keeping or eliminating it) is largely sentimental.

 

[Canuck_25]

The "love it or leave it" approach is touching, but only really represents a lack of ability to debate the issue.   I've told you before, if you don't have anything constructive to add and feel that any talk about government reform (yes, believe it or not, things change), then stay off this thread.

WRT to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it it" statement, some would argue that there is a problem in that the Prime Minister has too much power concentrated in his office and the "checks and balances" that do exist in the Head of State (the Crown represented by the GG) are rendered irrelevant due to the fact that the GG is largely seen to be a figurehead.   Legitimizing the GG by making it a public office may reverse this and bring an important check to Cabinet.   Nowhere in this argument is there the idea that we should move to an "American system".

The argument for electing a Governor General to represent the Queen in Canada is an easy one to make, but this is a debate that has real political consequences.   The argument to keep the antique, the Monarchy, is completely different and (except for the costs of keeping or eliminating it) is largely sentimental.

What's to point out? This has been covered enough times to make me bash this computer. Still though, people continue to argue over it. You continue to repeat yourself, as do others. Calling the Queen a "imbread" is hardly constructive. Im sorry, but your a hypocrite 

 

[Infanteer]

New members have brought new perspectives to the debate - I very much enjoy reading what Mr McKay and Mr Campbell have to contribute to the thread.

If you don't like it, then don't read it or bash your computer - don't come on here and tell people that they are Un-Canadian for daring to broach the subject.   This is you're final warning - your on the ramp without a chute, kiddo.

 

[Infanteer]

Quote me where I implied that you have failed in your duty in regard to military service, as I implied no such thing. Perhaps you like to see challenges where there are none. And also if you please, tell me how someone saying slanderous things in public, lives up to this oath. All questions of morality aside.

Wes or anyone for that matter can have whatever opinion they please on our monarchy. I have no issue with it, this is Canada after all. However, I do have issue with derogatory statements issued towards our monarchy made in public. One is not necessary to promote the other.

Let's just put it this way and let the matter rest.

You interpret the Oath one way and others (such as Wes and I) see it another way; both of which are dependent on how one sees the relationship between the Monarchy and Canada.   If you choose to feel that we are failing to live up to the Oath (and thus our obligation to Canada) in the way we feel about the current setup, then go ahead, but don't bother trying to lecture us on how we need to go about meeting our obligations.

An American soldier is fully capable of capable of thinking Clinton is a lying SOB or that Bush is a redneck cracker (yes, the President is in their Oath) without having to worry about somehow failing to live up to their duty to defend the United States of America - the same applies to us that serve Canada; with or without a monarch.

 

[onecat]

" I consider it un Canadian to desire a American form of goverment"

You don't have to look down south for ideas on how our system can be improved.  Our system is broken.  The Governor General, should be an elected positions as should all senate seats.  Their is no reason these important positions in gov't should be left to the PM to pick.    The GG should represent Canada not the Queen and the Royal family.  People have too take their heads out if sand and look at how we can make government better.  Look at the corruption that is filling the Liberal party, if had an a elected effective senate there night of been a way to stop this corruption.  But with our outdate system the PM has all the power.  Having more choice in who elect is one way to do that, also bring real power in those positions to counter the PM is another.  An effect elected senate and an GG elected by Canadians can do that.

 

[Acorn]

I'm now on the horns of a dilemna: I'm not a fan of the monarchy, though I respect QEII for her bearing. If I discard the monarchy, I'm left with the Liberals (for the moment, and they'll come back in a few years even as this current scandal blows over).

Maybe I should emigrate?

Incidentally, Infanteer, the charge WOULD stick if it were brought, de jure of course. It's still on the books, and in a service context is not as archaic as providing a horse-hitch to saloon-goers. If one can disrespect the office of the Commander-in Chief of the CF because it's archaic how does one defend the archaic offices of NCOs, WOs and commissioned officers? Yeah, I know: "it's different." Sorry mate, it ain't.

Acorn

 

[McInnes]

Infanteer, I asked fairly straight forward questions which you have again averted. And as for the oath, I think it's fairly straight forward. But I agree, we will obviously get no where like this, if there was anywhere to go with to begin with.
And did Wes tell you to speak for him? Gah.

You don't have to look down south for ideas on how our system can be improved.  Our system is broken.  The Governor General, should be an elected positions as should all senate seats.  Their is no reason these important positions in gov't should be left to the PM to pick.    The GG should represent Canada not the Queen and the Royal family.  People have too take their heads out if sand and look at how we can make government better.  Look at the corruption that is filling the Liberal party, if had an a elected effective senate there night of been a way to stop this corruption.  But with our outdate system the PM has all the power.  Having more choice in who elect is one way to do that, also bring real power in those positions to counter the PM is another.  An effect elected senate and an GG elected by Canadians can do that.

Wouldn't simply recognising the powers the GG already has and making it clear that we would not revolt if she actually used them be a lot easier? It dpes seem like a bit of a problem that the PM basically has the major say in who the Queen appoints as GG though. However, having an open public vote on the next GG, I fear, would simply create another political office filled with a politician, not the impartial "I am above politics" position that we really need.

 

[Canuck_25]

" I consider it un Canadian to desire a American form of goverment"

You don't have to look down south for ideas on how our system can be improved.   Our system is broken.   The Governor General, should be an elected positions as should all senate seats.   Their is no reason these important positions in gov't should be left to the PM to pick.     The GG should represent Canada not the Queen and the Royal family.   People have too take their heads out if sand and look at how we can make government better.   Look at the corruption that is filling the Liberal party, if had an a elected effective senate there night of been a way to stop this corruption.    But with our outdate system the PM has all the power.   Having more choice in who elect is one way to do that, also bring real power in those positions to counter the PM is another.   An effect elected senate and an GG elected by Canadians can do that.

Well, the system is not really out of date, over 20 years old, but still, brand new compared to Britain and the U.S.

 

[Neill McKay]

An American soldier is fully capable of capable of thinking Clinton is a lying SOB or that Bush is a redneck cracker (yes, the President is in their Oath) without having to worry about somehow failing to live up to their duty to defend the United States of America

Certainly, but it's pretty bad form for him to get onto the Internet and say it to the world.  I occasionally have cause to gripe about my CO, but you won't read about it here -- it's limited to quiet conversations with my messmates and my wife.

 

[Neill McKay]

" I consider it un Canadian to desire a American form of goverment"

You don't have to look down south for ideas on how our system can be improved.   Our system is broken.   The Governor General, should be an elected positions as should all senate seats.   Their is no reason these important positions in gov't should be left to the PM to pick.     The GG should represent Canada not the Queen and the Royal family.   People have too take their heads out if sand and look at how we can make government better.   Look at the corruption that is filling the Liberal party, if had an a elected effective senate there night of been a way to stop this corruption.    But with our outdate system the PM has all the power.   Having more choice in who elect is one way to do that, also bring real power in those positions to counter the PM is another.   An effect elected senate and an GG elected by Canadians can do that.

Why would an elected GG be any less vulnerable to corruption than an elected PM?

Also, do you think we should elect judges and Crown prosecutors?

 

[Infanteer]

I'm now on the horns of a dilemna: I'm not a fan of the monarchy, though I respect QEII for her bearing. If I discard the monarchy, I'm left with the Liberals (for the moment, and they'll come back in a few years even as this current scandal blows over).

Not necessarily, we are assuming that if we discard the monarchy we will not assume a new head of state.   Even if we don't, and your stuck with the Liberals, at least you and your fellow citizens put Parliament there (regardless of who you voted for), whereas you have no say in who your next Head of State is.

Incidentally, Infanteer, the charge WOULD stick if it were brought, de jure of course. It's still on the books, and in a service context is not as archaic as providing a horse-hitch to saloon-goers. If one can disrespect the office of the Commander-in Chief of the CF because it's archaic how does one defend the archaic offices of NCOs, WOs and commissioned officers? Yeah, I know: "it's different." Sorry mate, it ain't.

It may stick or it may not stick (if it leaves the military) - I think this issue was broached before on this forum and we figured if someone was nailed with this, it would probably draw the Charter lawyers into the fray regarding the "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression".

When was the last time someone was charged in the Military for this?   You say it would stick, but who would really be petty enough to bring forward a charge like this (short of the accused being a complete knob and just looking for a charge)?

The offices of NCO's WO's and commissioned Officers are not archaic, they have a de facto importance in the day to day affairs of the CF.

Infanteer, I asked fairly straight forward questions which you have again averted. And as for the oath, I think it's fairly straight forward. But I agree, we will obviously get no where like this, if there was anywhere to go with to begin with.

I answered you question, if you didn't understand it, I'll put it in simpler terms.   I put much more stock in the contract one signs rendering one legally obligated to the profession then I do in an Oath to Kings and Queens in a far off land.   It doesn't bother me at all because I don't see how one has to be loyal to the idea of a Monarch to be loyal to democracy and Canada.   I never got into the Forces in the interests of personal servitude.   If Canada (like Australia nearly did) voted to do away with the Monarchy tommorrow, would this suddenly free every soldier in the CF of their professional obligation?

This is probably the crux of the matter - de facto and de jure - do we need to update the Oath we give our soldiers?   American soldiers swear a very real oath, stating they will defend the Constitution (which governs them) against enemies, foreign and domestic, and serve their President (their very real C-in-C):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

We swear allegiance to the monarch and his/her descendants - how does this tie us to military service in Canada at all?   It mentions nothing of defence of the realm and nothing of the true service we give to the Canadian People and the true fact that our lawful command authority lies within Parliament.   Sure, there is a lot of fuzzy convention tied up in the Oath, but you don't want fuzzy convention when you are making citizens swear an obligation that includes unlimited liability.

And did Wes tell you to speak for him? Gah.

No, but he seems to be away and since he is a friend and you've charged us both as oath-breakers, I figured I would include him in the apologia.

Wouldn't simply recognising the powers the GG already has and making it clear that we would not revolt if she actually used them be a lot easier? It dpes seem like a bit of a problem that the PM basically has the major say in who the Queen appoints as GG though. However, having an open public vote on the next GG, I fear, would simply create another political office filled with a politician, not the impartial "I am above politics" position that we really need.

This is one measure that I support in the current climate that we could probably accomplish it without any change to the Constitution.   The Governor General possesses many important powers that could be "re-invigorated" if the position was held accountable to an electorate.   One such is as the lawful Commander-in-Chief; the CDS is the only government figure who legally possess the ability to go directly to his superior - could this be a useful "check and balance" if properly implemented?

I am unsure of why people assume that once a person gets in with a vote, they automatically become a political double-dealer.   Having political bias is part of being human.   How does the appointment magically make them impartial?   It wouldn't be the choice of electing or appointing a GG that would make the office impartial, it would be empowering the office to perform its Constitutional duties that would, because then the GG is forced to make political decisions relying upon their own judgement.   I can settle for that because I have faith (generally) in democracy.

As Mr Campbell pointed out, other states have elected offices that are the "heads of state" and they don't succumb to instability.   If the system is setup right (with long terms and limited powers of intervention), I believe the office can maintain a certain degree of aloofness from the day-to-day drudgery of Parliament - thus achieving Mr McKay's "Fire-extinguisher" affect.

Certainly, but it's pretty bad form for him to get onto the Internet and say it to the world.   I occasionally have cause to gripe about my CO, but you won't read about it here -- it's limited to quiet conversations with my messmates and my wife.

Well, I guess it is a matter of opinion.   People come on here and slag the Government (who is the real command authority) everyday and we don't bat an eye.   And doing this doesn't make anyone less of a soldier (which I've been trying to get at in the face of the "oath-breaker" charge).

Certainly, some of the comments made earlier lacked tact (although I think people overreacted to "Chuck"), but welcome to a free society, where people are free to hold their own opinions.   If this is how some choose to express their thoughts on the matter, then so be it.

Why would an elected GG be any less vulnerable to corruption than an elected PM?

The Senate is appointed - is it impartial and invulnerable to corruption?

As I stated above, its not the election that counts, its the powers that are given to the office.   A GG empowered by the public vote would do wonders in your "fire-extinguisher" analogy (now that they are elected, they have the moral authority to do so).

I guess the real gist of the arguement is whether we want a Head of State that is politically neutered (and thus impartial because nothing they say or think matters anyways) or one that is politically empowered to perform their duties (and thus liable to be partial to some opinion on the matter).

Also, do you think we should elect judges and Crown prosecutors?

No, because they are not representatives of the vox populi, they are members of the Judicial branch which has its own requirements.

Incidentally are you trying to tell me that judges are truly impartial in the way they deliberate because they are appointed?   Look at the contention of Supreme Court selection (both in Canada and in the US) - any office that has de facto legal power is going to have issues with personal opinion and bias; elected or appointed.

 

[Neill McKay]

We swear allegiance to the monarch and his/her descendants - how does this tie us to military service in Canada at all?   It mentions nothing of defence of the realm and nothing of the true service we give to the Canadian People and the true fact that our lawful command authority lies within Parliament.

Ultimately, Parliament acts in the name of the Queen (federal legislation starts with "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, enacts as follows:".  One of the Queen's responsibilities is to defend the country, and being unable to do this all by herself she has raised armed forces for that purpose.

As I stated above, its not the election that counts, its the powers that are given to the office.   A GG empowered by the public vote would do wonders in your "fire-extinguisher" analogy (now that they are elected, they have the moral authority to do so).

[...]

Incidentally are you trying to tell me that judges are truly impartial in the way they deliberate because they are appointed?   Look at the contention of Supreme Court selection (both in Canada and in the US) - any office that has de facto legal power is going to have issues with personal opinion and bias; elected or appointed.

There will always be personal bias, but the ethical waters get an awful lot muddier when an office-holder (a) owes a pile of favours to those that helped him get elected, and (b) wants to get elected again.  It introduces another influence that shouldn't be there.

 

[Infanteer]

Ultimately, Parliament acts in the name of the Queen (federal legislation starts with "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, enacts as follows:".   One of the Queen's responsibilities is to defend the country, and being unable to do this all by herself she has raised armed forces for that purpose.

That sounds all nice and pretty, but ultimately, Parliament acts on behalf of the the Canadian people that elected them and is accountable to them and not the Queen - it is the true command authority of the CF, it writes the rules, pays the bills, and sets the policies.   If the Queen came to Canada today and said "Parliament is disbanded", "You can't enact this legislation or that policy", or "As C-in-C of the CF, I order X", it quite simply would not fly - a King/Byng affair in this day in age would most likely result in Canada moving to do away with the Monarchy.

Again, let's not confuse "how it is written" with "how it is done" - the convention of a liberal democratic order is stronger then any de jure proclamation of the powers of the Monarch.

There will always be personal bias, but the ethical waters get an awful lot muddier when an office-holder (a) owes a pile of favours to those that helped him get elected, and (b) wants to get elected again.   It introduces another influence that shouldn't be there.

As I said earlier, the system can be designed structurally to limit this.   Give the GG a long term (10 years?) and no ability to be re-elected.   Make it a benign, largely reactive political office (basically how it is legally layed out now); the "Elder Statesman".   Include some sort of formula for recall.

In the end, I guess it comes down to political philosophy - I believe Canadians are more then capable of choosing their Head of State and that a Canadian citizen is more then capable of sitting in this office without being a complete and utter political hack (sure, the opportunity is there, but ce la vie in Democracy).

 

[1feral1]

  I've invited Mr. Allen to back up his words, something that I understand is encouraged on Army.ca, but so far it's just been more of the same from him and others.

Well, sorry I can't respond as much as I want, as we have just moved, no PC til after 20 Apr, and I am here at a local INet Lounge based out of Gaythorne for a few brief minutes.....

I stared an OPINION, and its a democracy, so I can say pretty much how I feel about the totally embarrassing new royals, Now if I had somehow threatened them, ya then sure have a go at me, and I would agree, but there is no way that I can be condemmed for my opinion in Canada or here in Australia, where the crown has always had a bad taste in our mouths. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one, and I got mine too. 

I don't need to be 'orally spanked' by a jr officer over such trivial comments. I did briefly respond in an earlier post (No. 231) about 'backing up' my words, but no long and drawn out paragraphs, just a few words.

Anyways, lunch is almost over, and I gotta get back to reality for a few more hours.


Cheers from a warm sunny typical Queensland day,

Wes

 

[Gunner]

My 2 cents goes for the formation of a Canadian republic as it is high time to move on from the British monarchy and go our own way.  We could still remain members of the commonwealth as this is part of our heritage.

 

[1feral1]

My 2 cents goes for the formation of a Canadian republic as it is high time to move on from the British monarchy and go our own way.  We could still remain members of the commonwealth as this is part of our heritage.

Exactly!

Time to let our OWN citizens become our OWN head of state.


Now I must go,


Cheers,

Wes

PS By the way Neill, your own kids could never be King or Queen anyways.

 

[Canuck_25]

My 2 cents goes for the formation of a Canadian republic as it is high time to move on from the British monarchy and go our own way.   We could still remain members of the commonwealth as this is part of our heritage.

The constitutional Monarchy is part of our heritage.

 

[Infanteer]

So was the Absolute Monarchy.  I'm sure if we were having this discussion a few hundred years ago, you'd be arguing against giving Parliament too much say.  Things change.

Do you think Canada will fall apart at the seams if we have someone new on the 20 Dollar bill?

 

[Neill McKay]

Do you think Canada will fall apart at the seams if we have someone new on the 20 Dollar bill?

It's not exactly falling apart at the seams now, is it?